This opinion piece argues that fields are merely probability distributions, strongly implying that particles are, actually, particles: <a href="https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/a-common-misunderstanding-about-wave-particle-duality/4019585.article" rel="nofollow">https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/a-common-misunderstan...</a><p>There's certainly plenty of common misunderstanding in this, uh, field!
From the paper: "Phenomena such as 'particle' tracks in bubble chambers, and the small spot appearing on a viewing screen when a single quantum interacts with the screen, are often cited as evidence that quanta are particles, but these are insufficient evidence of particles."<p>Really? Wave packets that are indivisible energy blobs, and that make individual "clicks" on my detector sure seem to act like particles to me.<p>I get that the math implies these bundles are waves - that's the duality part. I don't think any physicist thinks that there is a "particle" embedded in the wave packet, though, like this guy is arguing - the quantized wave packet is the particle!
Are there fields plural or is there one field singular?<p>My latest check of QFT is that there are 37 fields.<p>This leads me to believe:<p>- There is only 1 undiscovered fundamental field<p>- There are multiple gods and each complains about there being too many fields and how much simpler universe management would be if there was just 1 field and then <a href="https://xkcd.com/927" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/927</a>
> It's important to clarify this issue because textbooks still teach a particles- and measurement-oriented interpretation that contributes to bewilderment among students and pseudoscience among the public<p>Is this mostly settled then? And if so why do we continue to teach a bewildering model?